Hi,

From: "Tanaka Akira" <akr / m17n.org>
>
> So I think it is good to have both blocking methods and nonblocking
> methods.  The nonblocking methods should make event loop style
> programs happy.  However it is not accepted by matz because good names
> for nonblocking methods are not found yet.  Recently I proposed
> connect_nonblock, nonblock_connect, nbconnect for nonblocking connect
> but they are rejected.

Wow - the main thing holding back progress on this front is
method names?  I could embrace connect_nonblock or nbconnect,
there.

The blocking I/O issues are the thorniest problem for me
writing applications in ruby.  (Of course, it's 1000 times
worse on Windows, ... where nonblocking I/O is apparently not
supported at all yet.  That is just a nightmare.)

But regarding the method names - I'm wondering - are separate
methods really needed?  Are there any cases where Ruby can't
just inspect the fcntl() flags of the socket, and if 
O_NONBLOCK is set, provide nonblocking behavior?  You mentioned
connect(), which is an instance method.  Couldn't connect() 
just check for O_NONBLOCK?  Why would a separate method be
needed?   (Sorry if this is a FAQ.  :)


Regards,

Bill